Even if i were to agree that each person has a right to be treated with dignity, I’d regard it as a meaningless statement without some agreement on what “dignity” means. If it simply means the dictionary definition, then I disagree completely. It’s undignified to be required to defecate on an aluminum commode in full view of your cellmates.
So what makes you think you have the right to define these poorly-named “universal” principles, and reject my candidates for universal principles?
Override how?
Before I answer: do you now understand the ‘accuse away’ business that baffled you before?
I notice you made a point of speculating that you didn’t understand, and you thought I was just being a jerk.
I helpfully provided a color-enhanced explanation for the dialog. sich_hinaufwinden entered the discussion, sans canine, to point it out as well, although his explanation was monochromatic.
Now it appears you’d like to just move on. But I hate the idea that you are still harboring confusion or resentment over that.
You get it now, do you?
I get it. I wasn’t focused on my use of “accuse” so I didn’t make the connection when you said it. It might have helped my understanding had you chosen to be slightly less pithy, but no harm done; I am now enlightened.
This is just pure sophistry. In a similarly facile manner, I could suggest that I should never honor a father who ritualistically anally rapes me fortnightly.
For one, I don’t. Simplistically, if they are universal, they name themselves. In reality their identification is by some consensus. The idea that each person has a right to liberty for instance has apparently broad support. It’s possible that this universal principle is not recognzed by all. For example, your implicitly proffered 10 universal principles say nothing about individual liberty, so I suppose that you disagree that liberty is an inalienable right.
You still are not grasping the meaning of universal.
Great! Thanks. And I didn’t mean to pith you off.
Now your question: while Hentor hasn’t actually made clear what he desires, i think I’d be safe in saying that he’d support a reversal of the Voter ID law by, say, the courts, or even a rebellious local registrar, without regard to the rationale they used.
So when I say “override,” that’s the general message I’m trying to convey.
I guess not. To you, universal means “some consensus.”
Yet it most assuredly does NOT, according to you, encompass the broad consensus that Voter ID laws actually enjoy in real life.
So i am forced to conclude that you have no idea what it means either, or it has a meaning that allows you to twist it to fit your desired outcomes.
Still not grasping it eh? Illuminating, I think.
I already explained that they are universal not because everyone agrees, nor because they proscribe behavior in a manner in which everyone must comply.
They are universal because they are seen as being true for all. So for instance, someone could say, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
That is a statement of universal principles (presuming that “men” means “all people”). Who is that person to speak for us? Sheesh. As Bricker would observe, someone could be incarcerated, so where is your pursuit of happiness now? Plus, why does he get to name “life” and not “don’t covet thy neighbor’s ass”?
Is that helping you get it yet? It’s a pretty nice example of a statement of universal principles.
Yes, fine, as an aspirational statement, I’m sure there are phrases which, by virtue of their vagueness as to specific application and their general embrace of lofty principles might well be regarded as universal, in the sense of accepted consensus.
What of it? See, the moment you try to turn one of those vague, generic, universal principles into a specific application, the problem returns.
See, Hentor, we’re talking about an actual law. What, specifically, do you want to do about that actual law?
Quoth the leftist economist: "Yes, yes, it works in practice. But does it work in theory?
And which leftist economist said this?
Dr. Lefty Lefterson, PhD.
It was a joke. But the point was made a moment ago in ATMB that it wasn’t a fair comment to level in debate, so I withdraw it and apologize.
But a court’s ruling on laws is part of our system. In the other thread, you even included court rulings in the catalogue of legitimacy. Wishing or hoping or expecting it urging a court to agree with one’s position on constitutionality is not overriding or a personal veto, is it?
I suppose those advocating civil disobedience might be more of an override, but those who practice civil disobedience fully divorce that their defiance if the law will be checked by a higher authority. They do it as a tactic to persuade the public that their position is better, not with the expectation that their flouting of the law itself will ultimately succeed.
The only form of override I can think of short of actual insurrection is jury nullification, and so far as I recall, you and I agree on that.
Yes, true enough.
As it happens, apart from stating their dislike of the law, and suggesting that the current challenge will succeed, the commentary is somewhat silent on the particulars.
But why are you asking me? I’m not advocating any change at all. Why am I the best source to discern what people on the other side are thinking?
Unless I’m mistaken, you are the one who has been accusing people of abandoning the democratic system when things don’t go their way and accusing them of wanting to override legitimate lawmaking processes and seeking personal veto powers.
To the extent that they wish to erase the law in some way: yes.
If they are simply complaining that the law exists, then my comments aren’t for them.
But to take one example, Chronos began the thread by claiming that Texas was violating the Voting Rights Act. The clear inference there is that texas’ actions were illegal.
Then I pointed out that the section of the VRA he was mentioning had itself been overturned by the Supreme Court, and was no longer law.
His tactic in answer was not to admit error. No, no – he tried to claim that his answer was still good, that just because the law had been overturned didn’t mean it didn’t exist, and that Texas’s actions WERE fairly described as violating the VRA.
So you’re criticizing wishing or is there in theory a mechanism through which these wishes can manifest?
Sure, there are plenty of ways those wishes can manifest.
The classic one, of course, is that the Texas legislature repeal their law.
But that doesn’t appear what they’re wishing – although as you pointed out, the actual mechanics of what they’re suggesting is never made clear.
So i have no idea.
Isn’t that just functioning within the same democratic process that got the law enacted on the first place?
Yes.
And…?
So when you accuse people of abandoning democratic principles to override democratically enacted laws and seeking a personal veto when things don’t go their way, what exactly do you mean? Are they doing something that deserves criticism or not? And if they are doing nothing more than operating within our legitimate system then why do they deserve criticism?
After all, didn’t you say “accuse away”?
And just to be clear, I’m not trying to lay a trap or engaging in some rhetorical exercise. In genuinely trying to understand what you’re criticizing and why.